9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (1) TMI 1050X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld have been reflected in the profit and loss account of the petitioner for the relevant financial years. The petitioner asserts that TDS was deducted under Section 192 and not Section 194-J of the Income Tax Act. The deduction of tax under Section 192 is a material fact, but is not conclusive. Ultimately, the test is whether such remuneration was paid towards services provided as an employee of the company or whether services were provided under a contract for service for fees or other consideration. Suppression of purchases by not availing of available Input Tax Credit (ITC) - Held That: - the petitioner contended that ITC was not claimed on account of ineligibility. By referring to discrepancies as between the different returns, the prop ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hases by not availing of available Input Tax Credit (ITC). The second issue, which is the principal issue, pertains to the payment of performance linked incentives to two persons who held office as whole time directors of the company. By the impugned orders, such performance linked incentive was held to be liable to GST. The third issue relates to discrepancies relating to E-way bills. 4. As regards the first defect relating to ITC, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the purchases by the petitioner were duly reflected in the returns filed by the petitioner. To the extent indicated in the impugned orders, ITC was not claimed because the petitioner was not eligible to claim ITC in terms of Section 17(5) of the Tamil Nadu Goods an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es provided by the said persons. He further submits that the onus is on the petitioner to place on record all relevant documents to convince the assessing officer that the petitioner is exempt from tax either in terms of Circular No.140/10/2020-GST dated 10.06.2020 or otherwise. 6. As regards the first defect relating to ITC, the petitioner contended that ITC was not claimed on account of ineligibility. By referring to discrepancies as between the different returns, the proposed liability was partly confirmed and partly dropped. 7. With regard to the issue of directors' remuneration, the impugned order, in relevant part, records as under: As regards the reply in respect of defect No.2:The verification of the balance sheet with the form ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tinent to examine whether all the activities performed by the director are in the course of employer-employee relation (i.e. a contract of service ) or is there any element of contract for service . The issue has been deliberated by various courts and it has been held that a director who has also taken an employment in the company may be functioning in dual capacities, namely, one as a director of the company and the other on the basis of the contractual relationship of master and servant with the company, i.e. under a contract of service (employment) entered into with the company. 5.2 It is also pertinent to note that similar identification (to that in Para 5.1 above) and treatment of the Director's remuneration is also present in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
